The opinion of the court was delivered by: KOELTL
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:
This is a copyright infringement action by pro se plaintiff H.E. Elya A. Peker against defendants Reid A. Fader and Galaxy of Graphics Ltd. By Memorandum dated April 14, 1997, Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck certified facts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(e) demonstrating the contempt of Mr. Peker and his wife, Ms. Peker, before the Magistrate Judge at the March 26, 1997 Final Pretrial Conference, and recommended dismissal of the case as the appropriate sanction. For the reasons explained below, Mr. and Ms. Peker are adjudged in contempt of court, and the case is dismissed with prejudice.
The record in this case establishes the following facts. On August 26, 1996, this Court assigned this action to Magistrate Judge Peck for all pretrial matters. On October 7, 1996, Magistrate Judge Peck directed Mr. Peker to pay costs of $ 270.00 to the defendants for Mr. Peker's failure to appear at the conference on that date. In an order dated November 4, 1996, the Court affirmed this ruling. On November 19, 1996, Magistrate Judge Peck again directed Mr. Peker to pay costs of $ 290.00 to the defendants for Mr. Peker's failure to appear for his deposition and $ 395.00 for his non-appearance at the conference on that date. The Magistrate Judge also imposed a sanction of $ 250 payable to the Clerk of the Court. In an order dated December 19, 1996, the Court affirmed the imposition of compensatory sanctions for the defendants' expenses but vacated and remanded without prejudice the order awarding the sanction of $ 250 payable to the Clerk of the Court.
On March 21, 1997, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The basis for the motion was that Mr. Peker had failed to comply with orders of the Court to pay monetary sanctions to the defendants. The Court found that although Mr. Peker had failed to pay the costs, the sanctions had had the appropriate effect of accomplishing compliance in that Mr. Peker did eventually appear at conferences and at his deposition. The Court concluded that dismissal at that point in the case would be too drastic a sanction considering the time, money, and effort the parties had expended in the litigation. The Court reminded Mr. Peker, however, that the failure to comply with Court orders might lead to dismissal of this action in which event Mr. Peker would have no trial.
MR. SCHACTER: Your Honor, could we take a 15 minute break and I could have that, we have a copy that I --
MS. PEKER: I also don't have a copy.
MR. SCHACTER: I'll photocopy one for them, also.
THE COURT: Off the record.
THE COURT: On the record. Mrs. Peker --
MS. PEKER: -- Enlarge the complaint. Because the court is against artist, ...